A Superior Court justice Wednesday roundly rejected St. Catharines regional Coun. Andy Petrowski’s request to stall the publication of three integrity reports about his conduct.

It only took Justice David Edwards about six minutes to dismantle Petrowski’s arguments while delivering his decision.

“I find the motion does not satisfy any of the elements for a court injunction,” Edwards said.

Petrowski and Fort Erie resident Fred Bracken, who represented themselves, filed the motion claiming Petrowski’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being violated by interim integrity commissioner John Mascarin’s reports and Niagara Region’s code of conduct.

Edwards ended the hearing by awarding the Region its court costs. Petrowski and Bracken will have to pay $5,500 between them.

In an email sent to the reporter after the decision, Petrowski was scathing in his criticism of the process.

“The judicial system is rigged from the judges all the way down to law offices,” he wrote. “Our courts will have no part in upholding our constitution if it means the politically correct crowd of politicians will lose their only tool to punish and silence folks like me willing to stand up for the taxpayers almost at any cost.

“Today’s decision says one thing loud and clear — the province only wants robots in municipal office who will worship their status quo and do the bidding of progressives who are tearing up the fabric of society one thread at a time.

“Attention to all those who challenge the system, your political enemies are coming after you, and it won’t cost them a single penny because they are doing it on the public’s dime. Be silent or beware.”

Bracken — who is best known for following local politicians, police officers and reporters around with a video camera and occasionally conducting one-man protests on street corners — also had a rough day.

He started the morning by receiving a parking ticket in front of the courthouse.

Then Edwards ruled Bracken couldn’t participate in the proceedings.

He told Bracken he didn’t have to stay in the courtroom, but he had to remain available to deal with the issue of cost at the end of the hearing.

When the time to decide on costs arrived, Edwards had Bracken paged. He then asked Petrowski where Bracken was. Petrowski could only shrug his shoulders.

“I don’t know,” he replied.

Earlier, Petrowski told the court that if the integrity commissioner reports went forward, he would be forever known as a bully. The label would do irreparable damage to his reputation and his chances for employment.

Edwards wasn’t convinced.

“Mr. Petrowski himself confirmed in the media that he is seeking this injunction because otherwise, with the release of the report, he will be known as a bully,” Edwards said. “Therefore, Mr. Petrowski himself has already disseminated the essence of what he is asking the court to stop.

“I am satisfied the reports will have no additional effect on Mr. Petrowski’s reputation in comparison to newspaper articles that have already been published.”

Before the hearing began, Petrowski, Bracken and the lawyer representing the Region, Sachin Persaud of Toronto, decided to only deal with the interim injunction.

They agreed that Petrowski and Bracken’s Charter issues could be put over to another date.

After court, Petrowski said he wasn’t sure if he would continue.

“I haven’t made a decision on that,” he said. “It is still pending. All the paperwork is done, and there is no time limit on it. I have to decide if I want to go fishing this summer or fight another high-priced Toronto gun.”

In his summing up, Edwards pointed out to Petrowski that he didn’t offer any defence to Mascarin about the code of conduct violations.

“Mr. Petrowski was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, the preliminary report, and the final report,” Edwards said. “He chose not to provide any substantive defence. Having made that decision to not respond or participate in the process, it is inappropriate for him to suppress that report.”

In his court papers, Petrowski named 24 regional councillors as respondents.

Edwards dismissed the part of the motion that pertained to the councillors, saying they were not properly served.

Edwards also noted there were numerous “procedural defects” with Bracken and Petrowski’s paperwork.

The motion was served without proper notice to the Region; there was no factum or summary as required by the rules and there were no undertakings regarding damages.